Re: [boost] [msvc] #warning preprocessor directive

Subject: Re: [boost] [msvc] #warning preprocessor directive
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-10-17 16:59:42

Robert Ramey wrote:

> Hmmm - the appeal to me of such a standards committee proposal would be 
> the the fact that it's just a minor variation on static_assert.

Traditionally, the standard doesn't specify any warnings. It only 
distinguishes between three types of programs:

- ill-formed, diagnostic required
- ill-formed, no diagnostic required
- well-formed

although now that there's precedent for a construct whose purpose is to emit 
warnings, namely, the 'deprecated' attribute, the committee may be willing 
to consider including something like static_warning.